×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Burst Testing of a Larger Vessel - UG-101(d)

Burst Testing of a Larger Vessel - UG-101(d)

Burst Testing of a Larger Vessel - UG-101(d)

(OP)
Reading UG-101(d)(1)(c) the code explicitly states that for a burst test to cover "duplicate parts", the duplicate vessel must have the same nominal dimensions (width, height, diameter) as the burst vessel. This section says that duplicate vessels may not have longer lengths but allows for shorter lengths. However it does not allow for a shorter width, height or diameter. UG-101(d)(2) states that for geometrically similar parts a series of burst tests must be performed to cover the whole range of sizes.

My question is this: If you burst test the worst case scenario ie: the largest size with the largest spans, what is the concern regarding smaller sizes? Intuitively, I would think that as long as material thicknesses are not decreased, and as long as joints and welds have the same design/dimensions, then a smaller vessel could only be stronger the its larger counterpart. Clearly UG-101(d)(2) was put in place specifically to address these issues, however, I don't understand what the concern with smaller vessels actually is. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind UG-101(d)(2)?

Thanks!

-Steris

RE: Burst Testing of a Larger Vessel - UG-101(d)

Conservatism.

Just present your arguments/reasoning to your AI. He should agree that 'smaller is stronger'. Sect VIII Div-1 is avoiding 'blanket endorsements' of uncalculated vessels. They want an AI specifically involved with the 'strange stuff'.

RE: Burst Testing of a Larger Vessel - UG-101(d)

(OP)
Hi Duwe - Thanks for the reply. I guess, to me, the code reads such that it explicitly prevents "grandfathering" in smaller vessels. I just wasn't sure if either I was reading this right or if that was in fact the intent of the code.

RE: Burst Testing of a Larger Vessel - UG-101(d)

(OP)
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I couldn't find any code cases or interpretations on this topic. I can definitely have a conversation with the AI about it but I was hoping that there may be a more concrete document that sheds some light on this. Any help would be appreciated!

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources